Passim

Mandamus decisions / District of Maryland

Singh v. U.S. Department of Homeland Security

District of MarylandJulie Rebecca RubinDecided October 28, 2026No. 1:25-cv-02993

Read the decisionOriginal on CourtListener

2,914 written decisions from 2,661 cases in the whole mandamus and agency-delay group, the group's newest decided October 30, 2026. Updated November 3, 2026 at 1:24 a.m. CT; the Passim connector counts the live collection, which can differ by the day's additions and retirements (which total to quote). Coverage: of the 1,606 public decisions since January 1, 2025 that a CourtListener and GovInfo search for mandamus and agency delay finds, Passim holds 1,371 (85%), measured November 3, 2026. Some of what that search finds are not mandamus decisions. Tell us about a decision we're missing.

These are counts of past written decisions and dockets, not predictions of how any case will be decided. A distribution appears only when at least 5 decisions (or 5 dockets) are behind it; smaller groups are listed, not summarized. How it's counted.

What the decision decided

Each value cites the passage it was read from. Values read by a model were checked against that passage; values read by rule come from fixed text patterns. Read the decision before relying on either.

Agency USCIS Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the court to order USCIS to schedule their asylum interviews and adjudicate the Form I-589 Application.
Form or filing I-589 (asylum) Read by a model
Singh’s Form I-589 Application for Asylum and Withholding of Removal (the “I-589 Application”), with Ms. Kaur “listed as a derivative applicant.”
What the suit asked for Decide the asylum application Read by a model
Plaintiffs ask the court to order USCIS to schedule their asylum interviews and adjudicate the Form I-589 Application.
Kind of order A ruling on a motion or the petition Read by a model
ORDERED that Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (ECF No. 9) shall be, and is hereby, GRANTED
Motion decided Motion to dismiss for lack of jurisdiction Read by a model
Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 9 (the “Motion”).
Whose motion The government's motion Read by a model
Pending before the court is Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss at ECF No. 9 (the “Motion”).
Disposition Dismissed as moot Dismissed or denied as moot because the agency acted. Read by a model
ORDERED that the Complaint (ECF No. 1) shall be, and is hereby, DISMISSED without prejudice.
Prevailing party Neither side Read by a model
This court therefore cannot grant the relief Plaintiffs seek.
The delay claim Moot: the agency acted Read by a model
This court therefore cannot grant the relief Plaintiffs seek.
Months pending Not stated at filing The agency acted before this decision, so the months up to the decision are not a delay and are not shown. Read by a model
TRAC factors The court did not weigh the TRAC factors Read by a model
Threshold rulings Held moot Read by a model
Inasmuch as the NTAs have issued and been filed with the Immigraton Court, the Immigration Court has exclusive jurisdiction over Plaintiffs’ I-589 Application.

How the case ended

Docket
No. 1:25-cv-02993
Filed
September 11, 2025
Ended
October 28, 2026
Suit's filing to its end
412 days
How it ended
Ended once the agency acted
From the record
order 2026-10-28 dismisses for want of jurisdiction

A voluntary or stipulated dismissal is how most suits end once the agency acts; the docket rarely says why. Other suits in this court.

Supreme Court and Fourth Circuit authority

District decisions bind no one. On the questions this decision raises, the Supreme Court decisions and the circuit's published decisions listed here bind this court; a circuit disposition marked nonprecedential was not published as precedent and is persuasive only. ImmCite status as read November 3, 2026. Check the current status before relying on one.